[WSIS CS-Plenary] ITID's The World Summit in Reflection

[Jonathan Cave]

That's exactly correct.

Koven's comments do not fit the realities of (academic) research. He 
accuses Francis of believing that "nobody should be allowed to make a 
living from his/her work." This is disingenuous. Those of us at academic 
institutions are not (directly) compensated for the transfer of copyright. 
It is the publisher who makes the profit (really a rent for a 
legally-induced and otherwise wholly artificial scarcity), not the author. 
Moreover, the profit is mostly generated from the budgets of research 
libraries, which do not make money from direct exploitation of the work on 
their shelves.

In some cases, the selling-back is even more direct: library budgets are 
limited (though this journal is bundled with EBSCO Business Source Premier) 
so some scholars have to fund necessary subscriptions through personal or 
grant monies. Some journals (though not this one) charge hefty submission 
fees.

But the argument that scientific output should be free to readers does not 
mean that no payment is needed or collectable.
    * Since the immediate benefits of publishing a particular article in a 
peer-reviewed journal accrue to the author(s) (in the form of promotion, 
increased odds of proposal funding and other reputation rents) and the host 
institution (in countries where research output is evaluated and used to 
allocate institutional funding), it is reasonable that they should pay. The 
readers benefit collectively, eventually and as a 'public good.'
    * Even if readers are made to pay, efficiency suggests that they should 
pay in proportion to their marginal benefit. This cannot easily be 
determined and appropriate payment cannot be enforced. It is certainly hard 
to see why journal publishers (many commercial entities) should be funded 
through research libraries - at best this is a relic of the age of paper 
journals that were difficult to produce, distribute, archive and copy.
    * Even if journals charge for subscriptions, there is a strong case for 
open archiving of the material once published. The arguments for open 
archiving - as distinct from open access - are well-known (including but 
not limited to the obvious point that as taxpayers we have already paid for 
the research once); it is worth observing that even some commercial 
publishers accept and even welcome 'eprint archiving'
    * The point is that (even University-hosted) journals will survive on 
the basis of the 'quality imprimatur' and added-value they provide. Those 
that don't provide these things will die - and rightly so!
Competition should be used to promote efficient and equitable activity, not 
the opposite.

Cheers,

J.

At 18:18 06/04/2005, you wrote:
>Hmmm.
>
>But the issue of course, is that its not "their" i.e. MIT's material... 
>Rather it is material which scholars have given (via copyright) to MIT and 
>which MIT is then in the business of selling back to them (via their 
>institution's library budgets).  And in addition the materials themselves 
>have been in many cases generated through the use of public funds (e.g. 
>university salaries or publicly funded research grants).
>
>So publicly supported institutions are thus expected to pay for publicly 
>funded materials freely given to a private institution. (Anybody else see 
>something slightly askew with that picture?)
>
>I personally, have decided to follow Lawrence Lessig's lead and only 
>publish my academic writing in Open Archive journals which make their
>materials freely available to all via the net.
>
>Mike Gurstein
>
>Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
>School of Management
>New Jersey Institute of Technology
>
>Editor-in-Chief Journal of Community Informatics http://ci-journal.net
>Honorary Professor: Central Queensland University, Queensland, AU
>Senior Scholar: Claremont Information Technology Institute, Claremont
>University, California, USA
>Honorary Research Scholar: Centre for Community Networking Research,
>Monash University, AU
>Chair: Community Informatics Research Network http://www.ciresearch.net
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On
>Behalf Of Ronald Koven
>Sent: April 6, 2005 6:58 PM
>To: INTERNET:plenary at wsis-cs.org
>Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ITID's The World Summit in Reflection
>
>
>Dear Francis --
>
>MIT is a private entity.
>
>It has every right to attempt to generate revenue by selling its materials.
>
>
>There is no requirement, legal or moral, that organizations go bankrupt to 
>meet your view that everything should be free and that nobody should
>be allowed to make a living from his/her work.
>
>The ultimate logic of your position is that we'll all be totally
>dependent on government handouts.
>
>And where will that leave our freedoms ?
>
>Best, Rony Koven
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050406/35f23d04/attachment.htm